Editor’s note: Duane Varan is CEO, MediaScience, an Austin, Texas-based market research firm.
With the 2020 presidential campaign season underway, a new cycle of debates has been set in motion, complete with perpetual analysis as to what transpired in each. Once commentators begin declaring winners, voters reexamine their own perceptions of the debate. Even a survey taken immediately after the debate (before the spin begins) is colored by a voter’s perception of who won.
It shouldn’t come as a surprise that the accuracy of polls and post-debate surveys are limited by their dependence on voters’ stated responses, which are inaccurate reflections of true positions.
Understanding how voters experience a debate is critical because it tells us much more than the debate’s winners and losers. To unveil the “why” behind the “what,” researchers needs granular, second-by-second analysis of voter response. This level of analysis can facilitate an accurate measurement of each argument and exchange.
Historic methods of measurement
The traditional way to get such data is through dial testing. A select group of undecided voters are asked to turn a dial during the course of a debate to indicate their agreement/disagreement with a candidate’s statements. Typically, the collective response is represented as a graphic overlay (popularly called the worm) superimposed over a telecast.
While dial testing has a long tradition, it suffers from numerous flaws. First, measurement is limited to undecided voters since supporters subconsciously game their response by cranking the dial down whenever an opponent speaks and up when their candidate speaks. But elections are seldom won by independent voters alone and ignoring supporters leaves a critical gap in understanding the true dynamics of the debate.
But even undecided voters are rarely fair referees. Analyzing response patterns shows that many begin cranking their dials before a candidate has even made their argument. In other words, undecided voters are seldom truly undecided.
In addition, dials are still a stated response, which means that we’re gauging the rational journey of voters during the debate. But as we know from recent neuroscience discoveries, our judgments as voters are often shaped by emotional dynamics, of which we often lack self-awareness. Consequently, it is critical to measure both the rational and emotional dimensions of the debate experience.
New tools for measuring the experience
There are a range of tools today that can be used to measure voter’s second-by-second experience during the debates. Biometric analytical tools may present new opportunities to more accurately measure voter response on a continuous basis – including a voter’s underlying emotional journey.
Such measures allow voters to experience a more natural viewing experience, allowing them to be more absorbed in the debate content without continuously thinking about how to respond. Since all voters can be measured, whether undecided or supporter, deeper insights about the larger dynamic become available, including, for example, a comparison of levels of enthusiasm observed by supporters of different candidates. And, where dial testing treats the entire debate as a level playing field, biometrics unveils the dynamic, situating responses within the larger tide of the debate as voter boredom typically increases as the debate continues.
Testing presidential debates
Let’s consider a few examples from the 2012 and 2016 elections where we incorporated biometric data in analyzing debates.
The 2012 vice presidential debate between Joe Biden and Paul Ryan
During the debate, analysis of dial data revealed little about the overall experience of the debate. Both candidates had numerous key moments throughout. But biometric data – specifically galvanic skin response – demonstrated not only how the audience become progressively more bored (situating key moments within a larger context) but, more importantly, how the entire debate had a single pivot – the point at which Biden tells Ryan, “What, now you’re Jack Kennedy.” Until then both groups of supporters evenly tracked in the debate, but after that Democrats were far more energized. With dial data, that pivot presented as one of many key moments, masking its significance.
The 2016 election cycle
Biometric analysis during the 2016 election cycle was even more revealing, given the emotional dynamics associated with the Donald Trump candidacy. I will share a few examples.
- Facial expressions: Much to our surprise, our analysis of voter facial expressions revealed a high level of negative responses by Democrats whenever Hillary Clinton spoke, particularly in the second debate where discussion of her e-mail issues was more prominent. A similar pattern was not replicated among Republicans who generally responded well to Trump throughout the debate. We framed this as a significant enthusiasm gap, highlighting the Democrat’s discomfort with their candidate.
- Undecided voters: Undecided voters were surprisingly engaged throughout the debate (an unusual finding) and responded strongest to policy discussions (where supporters typically became bored) as indicated by their galvanic skin response. This differed from the 2012 election, where voters were mostly undecided due to apathy. In our 2016 sample, undecided voters were genuinely grappling with whom to vote for and responded well to a discussion that could help influence their decision. On policy discussions, Trump had something of an emotional advantage among such voters, typically responding with strong definitive positions. Clinton, by contrast, may have been perceived as evasive or overly technical, resulting in lower emotional response.
- Gender: Perhaps the most dramatic difference in the debate experience was found across gender lines. A key part of the second presidential debate, for example, discussed the Access Hollywood Trump and Billy Bush tape recordings. For women, this was the most engaging part of the entire debate. Men demonstrated remarkably low response levels.
The future of voter response measurement
With a new election cycle upon us, there is a valuable opportunity to reassess how we can best analyze debates, particularly in terms of accounting for the emotional dimensions of voter response. As demonstrated above, biometrics provide valuable new tools. I’m looking forward to the debate cycles and am eager to discover new insights about the candidates and their impact on voters.